Commandment keeping

Moody did not keep the OT Sabbath
He did not believe in keeping the Sabbath, Bob.

The word Sabbath in his day meant "Christian Sabbath," meaning "Sunday," and if you read the article you posted, it was from Saturday evening to Sunday evening. That is not the OT Sabbath. Moody did not keep the Sabbath, as defined by the Bible. He never did. You have been very deceptive all this time, and slanderous toward Moody.

Also: Cross Posting is not permitted.

 

How much longer is this tired thread going to be allowed to continue? :BangHead:

 

That is baloney. James is quite clear about the relationship between faith and works. You said, and I quote "the importance of works towards salvation." There is no work before salvation that has any merit. Works before salvation does not get you towards or closer to salvation. Works before salvation without anything else is a ticket to hell. After salvation in Jesus Christ, by faith through grace, good works will naturally follow. If works do not follow, there was no salvation.

The cart before the horse is a good example of this principle, except that those who depend on works for salvation, or think there are no works after salvation, are as lost as anyone without Jesus. If you love the Lord, you will follow His commands. If you are not saved, you do not love the Lord. Memorizing a set of rules with the reward of heaven in mind is not a relationship with the Lord. Salvation comes first, then works.

 

Free will being what it is - you are welcome to whatever views you like.

But the main point is to present a Bible case for whatever position you choose.

:jesus:
in Christ,

Bob

 

Thus D.L Moody affirms some of the very points that DHK flatly denies. In fact it appears that Moody is targeting DHK's arguments!!

Moody may have had an idea for "editing" the 4th commandment that he does not spell out here.

If you are claiming to switch horses to "why the Commandments can be edited" - feel free to make your case.

Your dark-ages name-calling "solution" each time your argument fails is far more predictable than you appear to imagine.

Choose the Bible instead.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan

 

Moody does not believe in the Sabbath.
Put the matter to rest, and stop deceiving people.

Oh, I see. Editing is ok. So that means "Thou shalt not kill: could mean, Thou shalt not commit no murder, but manslaughter is ok, right? We can edit the 4th commandment, so we can edit others. Thou shalt not commit adultery, so fornication is alright?? He, according to you just edited the 4th command a little.
Wrong Bob--He didn't believe in it. He did not believe in keeping the Sabbath. Learn to read the English of his day.

English has changed since Moody preached, and you can't seem to get that through your head.

It is not name calling to tell you to stop cross posting, which is against the rules.
It is not name calling to tell you to stop slandering a good man's name who never believed in the Sabbath in the first place.

 

Hint: The reader will here use some critical thinking and basic reading skills to actually "read" what D.L Moody says HE thinks HE believes instead of relying on a papal statement from DHK to "tell us what the text says".

Originally Posted by D.L Moody
THERE HAS BEEN an awful letting-down in this country regarding the Sabbath during the last twenty-five years, and many a man has been shorn of spiritual power, like Samson, because he is not straight on this question. Can you say that you observe the Sabbath properly? You may be a professed Christian: are you obeying this commandment? Or do you neglect the house of God on the Sabbath day[/b], and spend your time drinking and carousing in places of vice and crime, showing contempt for God and His law? Are you ready to step into the scales? Where were you last Sabbath? How did you spend it?

[b]I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, [b]He did nothing to set it aside[/b]; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

How facinating that the 3rd or 4th time a point is raised - DHK finally tries to address it -- it is almost as if DHK is "debating without actually reading" ;)

My point remains - Moody flatly condemns many of DHK's most basic anti-Commandment arguments.

Moody also engages in some form of "editing" the 4th Commandment - a tactic that DHK has not gone to - but who knows where DHK would go in the future. ;)

Well here is the one point where you differ with D.L Moody where I happen to agree with your point not his.

But on the other points - I believe he has taken the high ground that is Biblically sustainable and it is you who simply flounder with "pronouncement after pronouncement" as your only solution.

Hint: Moody argues that the Sabbath commandment was initiated and authorotative in Eden.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Fine - Let the "reader" decide if Moody actually references the Seventh-day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments - made Holy in Eden -- or not.

Sadly for DHK's argument - Moody's english seems to be working to zero in on the actual 4th commandment- ;)

in Christ,

Bob

 

Notice that on any thread where DHK's arguments are failing - he resorts to "Well then you are evil" of some form.

 

Correct - James is quite clear about this. Unfortunately, your interpretation isn't.

James 2:14-26
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD ALSO.

James is making a simple analogy; faith is made analogous to the body and works are made analogous to the spirit. As the body and spirit are both necessary for life (if we lose our spirit we lose our life), for this analogy to hold, faith and works are BOTH necessary for life. Faith without works is dead, just as the body without the spirit is dead. Thus, just as in physical life one needs the body and the spirit, for eternal life one needs faith AND works.

You might wish to look at the meaning of the word "towards" in this context. It is indicative of a process.

See the above...

I never stated that works alone will get you to heaven - I don't hold to a works based salvation. That's the typical straw man argument that lives here.

Really, to the exclusion of sin? Do you not sin? I mean, after all, if you do love the Lord you will automatically follow his commands, but if you sin, you are not following his commands are you? Thus, by your own definition, you are not saved! Can you not see the logical fallacy here?

A personal relationship with Jesus is a good thing and one should have this. However, where does scripture state that a "...personal relationship with Jesus" is the way one is saved? After all, Judas had a personal relationship with Jesus and one more "personal" than either you or I for that matter.

I differ with your statement in that salvation is a process - not a one time "punched-ticket-to-heaven" event. Further, there is no salvation without works! The balony here extrudes from your attempt to sepearte the two. Clearly, there is no salvation outside of Christ, however, that does not negate the requirements given us by God for works.

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in [DO] them" (Eph. 2:10).

Note that we "should" walk in them - not that we "shall" walk in them.

Now, look at the following verses and tell me that works are not important towards salvation. Our ultimate destination of heaven or hell is clearly dependent on them.

Revelation 2:23 (King James Version)
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Revelation 20:12 (King James Version)
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Romans 2:5-7
"5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works:

7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,


8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness."

Peace!

 

But the violation of the third commandment; called "blasphemy", is condemned all over the place in the NT. There is never any condemnation of sabbathbreaking! That's why just the mention of the sabbath there does not equate to a command to still keep it.

 

"there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" - Heb 4.
1Cor 7:19 But what matters is KEEPING the commandments of God

The Third commandment forbids taking the Lord's name in vain.

Blasphemy is the act of sitting in the seat of God - telling a christian by divine fiat "you are not saved" - or as in Christ's case - telling someone "your sins are forgiven" when in fact God alone can forgive sins. If Christ had not been God then that would have been blashemy - though it would not be taking God's name in vain.

These are very different acts.

in Christ,

Bob

 

GE:
Yes; And BobRyan does not believe in keeping the Ninth Commandment; no Seventh-day Adventist believes in keeping the Ninth Commandment. My deceased beloved family were the last Seventh-day Adventists who still believed they should keep the Ninth Comandment also like the Fourth.

How many years now this BobRyan abuses Moody thus? He never stops lying. He never stops stealing from Moody and others; he never stops transgressing the Fourth Commandments because if you break one you broke all.

Breaking the Commandments is not the serious part of the story .... It's confessing one's transgression of the Law that matters most. Ever heard a SDA confess his sins? You will hear them pray, Forgive us our sins .... but never, Forgive us for lying in your Name to people all the while.

 

Sorry Bob, you don't know what blasphemy is.
Blasphemy is bringing dishonor to the name of Christ. It has nothing to do with accusing another of being not saved. You are way out on that one.
It has directly to do with the person of Christ, and the doctrine of Christ.

Merriam Webster.

Notice this is exactly what happened in John 10:30ff.
The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy? Why? Because He, being a man, claimed himself to be God. To them that was showing contempt for God.

 

Here is the Word of God that you are so anxious to ignore -




In Matt 9 Christ is accused of blasphemy because Christ claimed the power of God alone - to forgive sins.

1. Matthew 9:2-3
   2And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven." And some of the scribes said to themselves, "This fellow blasphemes."

In Matt 12 the Jews claim that the work Christ does to heal the sick and cast out demons - is the work of Satan. Christ charges that to credit to Satan - the work of the Holy Spirit is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

1. Matthew 12:31
   " Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
   

In Matt 26 Christ is accused of blasphemy because he claimed the right of God again - to sit on the right hand of the Father and appear in the clouds of heaven before mankind at the 2nd coming.

1. Matthew 26:64-65
   64Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;
2. Mark 2:7
   "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Thus blasphemy is seen to apply to cases where one who is not God -- claims some priviledge or power that belongs to God alone or in the case of someone who attributes to Satan - the work of God the Holy Spirit.


Webster may have expanded that to a higher umbrella term that covers just about every thing one says that God would not like - but that is like saying that "worship" is a higher umbrella term - and that worship on Sabbath is a specific focused instance of the more general concept of worship. Thus the broad term blaspheme is not a specific instance of a reference to "not taking God's name in vain" any more than every reference to "worship" in the NT is a specific instance of "worship on Sabbath".

Again -- I am speaking here "as if" you take your argument seriously.

But time will tell.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I know good and well you've heard of something called "the spirit of the Law": that you don't have to literally commit the acion mentioned in the Ten Commandments to be guilty of violating. It's all connected if you really look at it.
For a person to consider themselves God, they are basically using His name; applying it to someone who is not Him; and that is taking the name in vain; even if they are not literally "uttering" it. In the case of Jesus, His accusers are the ones who made the connection with God and uttered the name. His claim would have been "vain" if He were not God.

So it all falls under the third commandment.

 

You consistently wretch the Word unto your own interpretation without giving heed to context, and use it to your own benefit, not giving the true sense of the meaning of the passage.
What happened here.

1. A sick man was present.
2. Instead of healing him Jesus forgave his sins.
3. The Jews immediately accused him of blasphemy. Why?
4. He again (as in John 10:30ff) showed contempt toward God), being a man acted as God, for only God can forgive sins. This they knew. But they did not consider Christ God.
5. Jesus demonstrated his deity by performing the miracle in healing the man.
--The definition of Webster fits the what happened perfectly. In the Jews mind Christ was showing contempt for God in claiming that he could forgive this man's sins.

That is not what Webster said. Do you enjoy attributing to others what they did not say??

Of course I take my argument seriously; but it is apparent that you don't know what blasphemy is.

 

contempt for God is a broad category - not mentioned in the 3rd commandment.

The Jews mentioned nothing about "contempt for God" in their complaint - rather they argue "specifically" that Christ was claiming a power that only God can rightfully claim - thus if Christ HAD NOT been God - his claim WOULD have been blasphemy.

But Ex 20 says nothing about "claiming to forgive sins" that is not the specific sin being addressed. Rather in Ex 20 the specific sin is taking God's name in vain.

IF you are willing to "GENERALIZE" each of these commandments so that ANY variation is "contempt for God" -- then in the same way the Sabbath can be "generalized" to "Worship" - and in that case every mention of "Worship" in the NT becomes a "quote of the 4th commandment" using your short-sighted solution here.

Perhaps you would like to try another one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

As already stated - your are generalizing the command "not to take God's name in vain" ( you even include the idea of making "a claim in vain" as also "taking God's name in vain) so that any variation (such as claiming to forgive sins) is considered a form of "disrespect" or some other generalization you are trying to insert into the 3rd commandment text - so as to claim that it is quoted or commanded in the NT.

But in so doing you open the door to the generalization of the Sabbath commandment as "Worship" and thus every mention of worship in the NT also becomes a reference to the 4th commandment.

Once you open the door to "generalization covers the commandment" then the Sabbath is easily included in the NT using the same rules.

But in the case of the Sabbath we have the exact references "There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" Heb 4.

in the case of the 3rd commandment - no such exact wording "Taking God's name in vain REMAINS off limits to the people of God".

In fact in Acts and in Rev 14 we have an excerpt of the unique Sabbath commandment language "maker of heaven and earth and the seas" -- a phrase found only as a quote of the Sabbath commandment in all of scripture.

But in the case of the 3rd commandment - no exact excerpt "not take the Lord's name in vain" or "he will not hold him guiltless who takes the Lord's name in vain" etc.


in Christ,

Bob